Forum:Pre-reboot Should be Separate from Reboot
I firmly believe that pre-Reboot Trek and the post 2009 reboots need to be kept separate. Okay, I will concede we cannot ignore reboots, but for many reasons, they take place on an alternate timeline, and have not changed any previous seen events. Therefore, all articles concerning reboot info should be clearly marked as such, and there should be a way to track reboot information and articles that flag them as such. This could be used for either inclusion or exclusion in someone's own personal research. I could write a very long dissertation on this, but I think most of us agree the reboots are a separate "branch" of the franchise. The many inconsistencies raised by the films easily demonstrate this. Please, don't try to work them into or around original canon, weaving the two together, as the producers and writers have basically said they paid little attention when crafting the reboot films. Of course, even original canon contradicts itself at times, but not to the same degree nor on issues as significant as the reboots contradict it. Basically, I would like a system to ensure that I know where the info I am reading comes from, that's all. A consistent and defined way to determine what timeline is in play, as well as safeguards against mixing the timelines and causing confusion. That's all. 16:39, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :We already do separate content from the alternate reality by marking it as such (James T. Kirk is different from James T. Kirk (alternate reality) and James T. Kirk (mirror)). We also already mark such articles with special banners at the top depending on whether the information only comes from one timeline or multiple ones. Keep in mind that some information about the original characters was revealed in the reboot films(such as Prime Kirk speaking of his dad). :Separate branches of the franchise are still parts of the franchise. You can believe whatever you wish about what films and content should be a part of the Trek timeline(there are people who reject anything Gene Roddenberry was not involved in as part of the timeline, for example) and MA does not mandate viewing the timeline a certain way (see MA:CANON) but we cover all official Star Trek productions. You are certainly free to create your own wiki with whatever scope you wish, as well. 31dot (talk) 16:43, March 31, 2015 (UTC) I understand, and do not wish to reinvent the wheel. I am sure this is a hotly contested debate. However, there are those saying that this wiki is not consistent in marking where info is taken from, and can be confusing or ambiguous. As it is a wiki, I can believe this. Is there any way to have a set of "flags" for articles that are "checked" by the author. Include flags for each series, general canon, AR film, AR canon, etc. I have not yet seen a big issue with this, however, if info were not cited as AR how would I really know? A simple "in article" omission, unintentional or otherwise, could create a confusing situation. I never said exclude reboots, I said come up with a defined and consistent way of identifying them. For example, you point to Kirk's father, but all of that changed when Nero killed Kirk's father, as in original timeline TOS Kirk's father was not killed. This had a affect on the trajectory of Kirk's entire life, so clearly the two MUST be kept separate, for consistency of experience. RichK66 (talk) 17:00, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :Regarding what Spock said about Kirk's dad, this is only true for the original Kirk (Shatner's); if it is on the page for Pine's Kirk, it should be removed. :I'm not sure what you mean by "flags" and how it would be different than what is done now. :I'm not really sure what information you are finding problematic.(examples?) In most cases the information should already indicate what film it comes from and what timeline it refers to; how this would be differentiated was largely settled in 2009 before the first new film. 31dot (talk) 17:06, March 31, 2015 (UTC) ::There's really no way to make sure information is correct on a wiki such as this (or Wikipedia, for that matter) other than vigilance. One of the reasons we do inline citations is so that everything should be verifiable as to where it came from. If it's not, we either ask for a citation or delete the information (if we're sure it's not canon, or if it remains uncited too long). Various templates exist to request citation, for example , , etc. On pages that contain both prime and alternate reality information, the alternate reality info will be (or at least, should be) in italics, or, occasionally, in a separate section with an "Alternate reality" heading. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:14, March 31, 2015 (UTC) By flags I mean simple check boxes, a flag is generally an on/off in computer systems. In code it might look like indicting the box for Voyager had been checked. I guess the wiki framework really does not allow this. I was thinking too much, lol. This is a platform as much as a website. RichK66 (talk) 18:29, March 31, 2015 (UTC) ::The problem is that even if an article *was* "fact checked" and marked as such, someone could come along five minutes later and add something spurious, thus invalidating the check. It would be a never-ending and fruitless endeavor. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:01, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :::Memory Alpha is not Wookieepedia. We aren't going to add buttons to remove information that is "non-canon" from articles because all the information in MA articles is "canon" according to the site. Information from the films you decided are a problem have citations to either or somewhere very close to that information, if not right after it. You can decide to not agree with it, but it did happen in an official Star Trek production, and so it will be included in articles where relevant. That will sometimes include articles in the "prime" universe, because sometimes that information is relevant to the "prime" version of that character/ships/etc. - 22:33, March 31, 2015 (UTC) The problem is some "contributors" seem to not care about keeping the reboot movies and the prime Trek info separate. On several pages involving the characters seen in both "time lines" they have combined the two and tried to ignore anything from the first 50 years and use only what was in the movies..The James Kirk post are a prime example, when they change the prime Kirk's POB to the Kelvin, and removing Iowa and then when the info is corrected I received a snotty message that "the movies happened, are canon deal with it or leave" with the impression given he was a ADMIN here not just a Contributor same as every one else. It becomes a issues... --Star Wolf 1970 (talk) 14:46, April 1, 2015 (UTC) ::::There will always be some level of disagreement or some token editors not following the established policy, but it should be noted that your example of Kirk, the prime article currently says he was born in Iowa. In general, editors have tried to keep things consistent and separate (as needed) as best as possible. The talk pages for articles where there is a dispute is generally the place for discussing that. I don't know of any technical solution; anyone can just come along and change Kirk's birthplace to the Kelvin, but by the same token, anyone can come and put it back to Iowa. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:47, April 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::The technical solution would be to protect a page when it happens too often, or an editor persists despite reversions. That happens sometimes, but mostly you just got to be vigilant. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:30, April 23, 2015 (UTC) ::::StarWolf, I just looked around trying to find what you were talking about. It was difficult as the edits in question were not to James T. Kirk or his alternate timeline article. You actually were making edits to Winona Kirk and George Kirk, and you weren't removing claims that Kirk's place of birth was the Kelvin instead of Iowa. Those articles did not make those claims. They stated that the two parents served on the Kelvin while his mother was pregnant with James T. Kirk. Their service happened before Nero's incursion, as did their pregnancy (she was already pregnant when Nero arrived), so that is "prime reality." The articles only stated that they served on the ship while she was pregnant, not when she gave birth. They made no claims as to his place of birth. Honestly, they could, given that James T. Kirk claims his place of birth as Iowa. Presumably, had Nero not showed up, she either wouldn't have gone into labor when she did or they would otherwise have made it to Earth in time or something. We don't need to state the how. That said, Archduke, who is an admin, was right to revert you. Your edits weren't about removing claims of place of birth. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:28, April 23, 2015 (UTC)